Taylor v. Kelety
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Lula Mae Taylor, proceeding pro se, moved for an extension of time to respond to defendants' motion to dismiss after the deadline had expired. The court granted the motion, finding excusable neglect, and ordered plaintiff to file her opposition within 14 days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for extension of time to respond to motion to dismiss granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to respond.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the four-factor equitable test for excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B). The record recites specific facts supporting the finding: plaintiff's age (82), medical disabilities, prior attempt to meet and confer, and lack of prejudice to defendants. The decision follows logically from the cited law and the stated facts. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule (Rule 6(b)(1)(B)), cites the correct binding precedent for the equitable test (Pincay and Pioneer), and applies those factors to the specific facts recited in the order (age, medical conditions, lack of prejudice). The reasoning directly answers the motion with the right authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LULA MAE TAYLOR, Case No.: 20-cv-1987-DMS-AGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND 14 JULIA CRAIG KELETY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 On December 9, 2020, Plaintiff Lula Mae Taylor, proceeding pro se, filed a motion 17 for extension of time to respond to Defendants Tracey Martino, Stifter Law Corp., and John 18 Joseph Stifter IV’s (“Defendants”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 10.) 19 Plaintiff requested this extension after the time to respond to Defendants’ motion 20 had expired. Accordingly, to meet the good cause requirement for extension of time, 21 Plaintiff must show excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). The determination of 22 whether neglect is excusable is an equitable one that depends on at least four factors: 23 “(1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the length of delay and its 24 potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it 25 was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the moving party’s 26 conduct was in good faith.” Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 855 (9th Cir. 2004) (en 27 banc) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 28 1 (1993)). 2 After considering these factors, the Court finds Plaintiff's neglect is excusable. 3 || Plaintiff is 82 years old and states she did not have sufficient time to respond due to 4 disabilities and medical conditions. (ECF No. 10 at 7.) Plaintiff did attempt to meet and 5 ||confer with Defendants on November 20, 2020. (/d.) Allowing Plaintiff additional time 6 ||to file will not unduly prejudice Defendants or have a significant impact on the judicial 7 || proceedings. 8 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to 9 ||respond. Plaintiff shall file her opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss within 10 || fourteen (14) days of this Order. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: December 21, 2020 J 13 rn yn. Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28